7.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1964 respectively and live in the village of Aleko Konstantinovo, the Pazardjik region.
8.  In December 1993 the applicants were questioned as suspects in the destruction of a walnut tree owned by a State‑owned company.
9.  On 16 February 1994 the Pazardjik District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal proceedings against the applicants.
10.  The first applicant was charged on 11 December 1995. The second applicant was charged on an unspecified date in December 1995. Immediately after the charging the applicants were ordered not to leave the town without authorisation as a measure to secure appearance before the competent authority (see paragraph 21 below).
11.  On 21 December 1995 the applicants were indicted. The prosecutor, acting on behalf of the State‑owned company, also brought a civil claim for damages against them.
12.  The Pazardjik District Court held its first hearing on 18 March 1996. It heard the applicants and questioned three witnesses. Finding that the facts of the case were in need of further clarification, the court ordered an expert report on the value of the walnut tree timber and decided to call another witness. It adjourned the case.
13.  The expert report was ready on 9 April 1996.
14.  The next hearing took place on 23 April 1996. The court heard the expert and admitted his report in evidence. It held that the facts were in need of further elucidation, ordered the expert to supplement his report and adjourned the case.
15.  The supplementary expert report was ready on 3 June 1996.
16.  A hearing listed for 25 June 1996 failed to take place because the applicants’ lawyer was absent.
17.  The next hearing was held on 9 August 1996. The prosecutor requested an additional expert report. The applicants’ lawyer agreed. The court ordered an additional expert report and adjourned the case.
18.  The next hearing took place on 26 September 1996. The court repealed its prior order for an additional expert report, admitted certain documents gathered during the investigation in evidence and heard the parties’ closing argument. After deliberating in private, it found that a material breach of the rules of procedure had taken place during the investigation. In particular, the applicants had not been properly charged, which had infringed their defence rights. Accordingly, the court remitted the case to the prosecution authorities with instructions to rectify this shortcoming and also to gather additional evidence.
19.  Since no progress took place in the remitted case, in August 1999 the applicants complained about the length of the proceedings to the Pazardjik Regional Prosecutor’s Office and to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. On 24 August 1999 the Pazardjik Regional Prosecutor’s Office sent the applicants’ complaint to the Pazardjik District Prosecutor’s Office. On 14 September 1999 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office sent the applicants’ complaint to the Pazardjik Regional Prosecutor’s Office, ordering the prompt completion of the case. On 23 September 1999 the Pazardjik District Prosecutor’s Office informed the Pazardjik Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the applicants that the reason for the delay had been the failure of a witness to appear. It stated that measures had been taken for the speedy finalisation of the case.
20.  On 18 March 2002 the Pazardjik District Prosecutor’s Office, finding that the relevant limitation period had expired, discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicants. It also lifted the prohibition on the applicants to leave the town without authorisation (see paragraph 21 below).